Resurrection and Spirit: From the Pentateuch to Luke-Acts

By Brian W. Lidbeck

The preachers in Acts are Spirit-filled people who have one message to proclaim: the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The themes of resurrection and Spirit converge at Pentecost when Peter boldly announces that the risen Christ has poured out the Holy Spirit. A new stage in redemptive history has arrived, but is it entirely new?
As it turns out, the concept of resurrection is not new at all--it goes back much farther than many people realize and has its roots in the Pentateuch. At the same time, the Holy Spirit has advanced God's agenda from the very beginning. When these two eschatological themes meet on the lips of Peter at Pentecost, thousands suddenly realize who Jesus is. They acknowledge Luke's central teaching: Jesus is Lord and Christ. Resurrection and Spirit traces these two Lukan themes from the Pentateuch to Luke-Acts and invites the reader to discover a new depth of appreciation for Jesus, the Lord and Christ.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Nov 9, 2020
• ISBN: 9781725267039

Brian W. Lidbeck

Brian W. Lidbeck holds a PhD in biblical interpretation and theology from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. He spent twenty-four years as a lead pastor and presently serves as the academic dean of Northpoint Bible College, Grand Rapids.

Book preview

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between two of Luke’s most prominent themes in his gospel and Acts: the resurrection and the Spirit. By studying the two themes together and drawing heavily from the Hebrew Scriptures that Luke uses as his foundational source, one sees Luke’s theology more holistically, gains fresh insights into his pneumatological interests, and better understands his perspective on the resurrection of Christ. This approach can then serve as a basis for additional study and comparison with Paul’s complementary teaching on these subjects.

The thesis of the following study is that (1) Luke frames his two volumes in an eschatological context in keeping with the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures, and this context provides a point of intersection for resurrection and Spirit; (2) he views the Spirit as the divine agent who advances God’s plan through creative and charismatic acts, but especially by anointing a Messiah in fulfillment of an Old Testament leadership and Davidic pattern; (3) the concept of resurrection has roots in the Pentateuch, and the resurrection of the anointed one is a fulfillment of Scripture, a reversal, and a royal exaltation; (4) the Spirit anoints Messiah’s followers to proclaim the message of his resurrection and reign to all nations; (5) the themes of resurrection and Spirit intersect in identifying Jesus in accordance with Luke’s central point that Jesus is Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36); and (6) the themes of resurrection and Spirit converge in the Pentecostal narrative, for it is through the resurrection as part of the complex of exaltation events that Christ’s divine status becomes evident and that he exercises the divine prerogative of pouring out the Spirit.

The primary notion that Christ’s resurrection and the Spirit both serve Luke’s purpose in glorifying Jesus as Lord and Christ relativizes other significant themes. Thus, important emphases such as prophetic inspiration receive attention as the means by which the Spirit advances God’s plan, but prophetic inspiration and charismatic events are viewed as means to an end and not as ends in themselves. Likewise, this study acknowledges Luke’s use of cultic images in relation to Pentecost but emphasizes how Luke uses such images to focus on Christ. Luke employs temple and priestly images in order to point to the exalted status of Christ and does not necessarily use them in the same way that Paul does.

The Reason for Resurrection and Spirit

Even the mention of the Holy Spirit in a study on Luke-Acts could immediately call into question the need for yet another journey on this well-trodden path. The Spirit in Luke-Acts has received an outpouring of scholarly attention for several decades and is recognized by all as a major theme in Acts. The abundance of references to the Spirit (there are about seventeen direct references to the Spirit [πνεῦμα] in Luke’s gospel and fifty-seven in Acts) demonstrates Luke’s obvious interest in the topic.¹ Martin Mittelstadt has chronicled much of the history of the debate over Lukan pneumatology in his work Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition. He notes the surprise of François Bovon that not only have Lukan studies not ceased, but that Lukan theology has advanced, in part due to the arrival of Pentecostal theologians.² Yet, while the breadth of Lukan studies has expanded tremendously, the debate over a proper Lukan pneumatology still rages, and the existence of that continued debate is evidence that there is still room for greater clarity and more work.³

One might assume that a subject as prominent as the resurrection would have been studied exhaustively in Luke-Acts by now. After all, Luke directly mentions the subject with his typical resurrection terminology sixty-two times.⁴ References to resurrection in general include four resuscitations apart from Easter (Luke 7:11–17; 8:49–56; Acts 9:40–41; 20:9–10), discussions with the Sadducees (Luke 20:27–37; Acts 23:8), mention of the final resurrection (Luke 14:14; Acts 24:15), and a figurative resurrection (Luke 15:32). Jesus’s resurrection is foreshadowed in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:31) and is reflected via a double entendre in the raising up of a paralyzed man (Acts 3:6–7). Use of the Name of Jesus implies his resurrection (e.g., Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 12, 30; 5:29, 40), and the title Lord implies his resurrection and exaltation (Acts 2:36; 4:33). Also, the word of the Lord became closely associated with Christ’s resurrection and the complex of saving events early in Acts (2:22, 40, 41; 4:29, 33). Not only the pre-ascension appearances (Luke 24; Acts 1:1–11) but also the post-ascension appearances of Jesus testify to his resurrection (Acts 7:56; 9:3–16; 10:13–15; 18:9–10; 23:11).⁵

Yet Lukan studies have by no means exhausted Luke’s teaching on resurrection. The standard Lukan commentaries and theologies address resurrection in Luke-Acts, but a perusal of the vast array of research on Luke-Acts reveals a startling lacuna: not one monograph has been devoted to the subject of the resurrection in Luke-Acts as a whole, and relatively few essays have been devoted to the subject.⁶ Kevin Anderson’s "But God Raised Him from the Dead" has gone a long way in filling that lacuna, but there is still room for further study.

Even a cursory reading of Luke-Acts reveals the prominence that Luke gives to resurrection (especially the resurrection of Christ) and to the Holy Spirit. Due in part to the influence of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, a host of books on the Spirit and, particularly, on the Spirit in Luke-Acts have flooded the market. Such specialized studies have their place, but there is a danger in isolating a single Lukan theme from his larger purposes, other emphases, and the broader biblical story. Some authors have noticed this danger and made an attempt to establish their pneumatology on a stronger, broader biblical footing or have expanded the study of pneumatology by examining it in relation to other subjects. Roger Stronstad sought to demonstrate the Old Testament roots of Lukan pneumatology; the subtitle of the second edition of his book emphasizes this: The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Trajectories from the Old Testament to Luke-Acts.⁷ Martin Mittelstadt studied Lukan pneumatology in light of Luke’s suffering theme,⁸ and Youngmo Cho endeavored to shed light on the uniqueness of Luke’s pneumatology by examining the themes of Spirit and kingdom and comparing Luke’s handling of these themes to Paul’s treatment of them.⁹

Despite the advances, however, a need still exists for a more thoroughly christocentric Lukan pneumatology. Studying the themes of resurrection and Spirit in tandem results in a more christologically oriented pneumatology. Luke helps his audience understand that the Spirit is the divine agent who advances the plan of God by anointing the Messiah to proclaim salvation and by empowering believers to proclaim the resurrection of Christ and his lordship over the nations.

Still, examining these two themes together is not enough. A third theme, which is really a Lukan presupposition and framework for his two volumes, rapidly emerges in this study, and that is his eschatology. Spirit and resurrection are two crucial elements of Lukan eschatology. From the birth narratives forward, the Spirit is a key player in fulfilling Hebrew expectations of a coming Messiah, and resurrection is the definitive, restorative event signaling the fulfillment of Hebrew hopes and the arrival of the eschaton. Therefore this study must place a heavy emphasis on the role of eschatology in the Third Gospel and Acts, and eschatology by its very nature requires a thorough investigation of the Old Testament’s progress in revelation. Thus, this study places a premium on developing an Old Testament eschatology in order to shed light on Luke’s perspective and to avoid reading his themes in isolation from the worldview that spawned them.

Methodology

Luke wastes no time in striking the eschatological note when he writes of the things that have been fulfilled among us (Luke 1:1).¹⁰ Because Luke has set the agenda for us up front, it is necessary to thoroughly exam how the Hebrew Scriptures inform Luke’s eschatology and his doctrine of the Spirit and resurrection. Therefore this study employs a biblical-theological approach to trace how the Spirit functions as the divine agent who advances the story toward the resurrection of Christ and, ultimately, the resurrection of his followers. The seeds of these themes are buried in the soil of the Pentateuch; thus the argument traces key developments of the doctrine of the Spirit and of the resurrection from the Pentateuch to Luke-Acts.

The biblical-theological approach employed here implies several presuppositions. It implies the acceptance of the proposition that the Bible has an underlying unity to it and that Christ is at the center of this unity.¹¹ It implies a supernatural worldview in which God is advancing a redemptive plan in history. There is a metanarrative to history that can be discerned in the Scriptures. Thus, this study does not assume some commonly held views such as a second-century-BC date of Daniel, which is based largely on the modern critical notion that the author uses vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact). The following argument also challenges the assumption that resurrection is an invention of Intertestamental Judaism.¹² Furthermore, the approach to this study contests many of the fundamental ideas of the documentary hypothesis, such as the idea that early Israelite religion had no eschatology, that Israel evolved from polytheism to monotheism, that messianism only came later in Israel’s history, and that the Pentateuch is merely a piecemeal product of human authors of various times rather than the product of a divine mind.¹³

This study also presupposes that Luke-Acts is a two-volume work written by a single author and most likely identified as Luke the physician (Col 4:14). Luke writes with the intention of continuing the story of redemptive history and therefore narrates the events with a theological purpose.¹⁴ A variety of methods such as grammatical-historical exegesis, literary criticism, and redaction criticism help shed light on Luke’s perspective, but Luke-Acts is studied primarily as a whole, finished product that offers unique insights into the progress of God’s plan. Comparisons with Paul’s complementary instruction reveal the contributions of each author, but one author’s work does not hold a superior position in the canon nor serve as the primary interpretive lens of another author’s work.

In order to demonstrate Luke’s theological continuity with the Pentateuch and the emergence of his emphases from there, this work gives ample attention to the Spirit and resurrection in the Pentateuch. Because there are far more clear references to the Spirit in the Old Testament than there are to resurrection, representative passages on the Spirit are selectively chosen for discussion. Most resurrection passages in the Old Testament receive attention because they are less numerous, highly controversial, and have not been frequently studied from the pneumatological and Lukan perspective of this work. Pentecost receives substantial attention, as the two themes converge there. Because of the biblical-theological orientation of this project, a large portion of the study focuses on the implications of Old Testament antecedents for Luke’s pneumatology and doctrine of the resurrection.

Summary

The themes of resurrection and Spirit most clearly converge in and around Luke’s Pentecostal narrative, but the Old Testament provides the essential theological ingredients that allow the two themes to merge into a celebration of Christ’s lordship in Luke-Acts. Along the way there are glimpses of the convergence of the two themes, but the primary way they intersect is through the eschatological and prophetic perspective of the Old Testament. Consequently, chapters 2–5 begin in the Pentateuch, with chapters 2–3 focused on pneumatology and chapters 4–5 devoted to resurrection. Each chapter explores how the Mosaic worldview serves as a foundation for Luke’s pneumatology or for his doctrine of the resurrection. Chapters 6–8 build on this foundation and show specific ways in which the Spirit and resurrection complement one another in Luke-Acts.

More specifically, chapter 2 focuses on the Spirit’s role in creation. The Torah’s eschatological perspective comes into view immediately, as the Spirit acts to bring emptiness to fullness. Luke sees the significance of this and records the Spirit’s role in the conception of Jesus. Moses also depicts the Spirit as a sanctuary builder with the ultimate goal of enabling God and humanity to dwell together. Thus, the Spirit is associated with the divine presence.

Chapter 3 highlights various passages in the Pentateuch that demonstrate the prophetic aspect of the Spirit’s work, an element shared with Luke. Numbers 11 receives attention because of this emphasis and because of its eschatological and Lukan implications. The discussion shows that Numbers 11 also incorporates other themes and has christological significance. The prophetic activity of Joseph, Balaam, and Joshua is also examined with an eye on Christology.

Chapter 4 argues that the notion of a resurrection has its roots in the Torah and that this doctrine logically results from the Pentateuch’s eschatological moorings associated with God’s plan to bring restoration from the fall. The connection between death and barrenness receives attention, and the study traces the theme from Abraham and Sarah to the Lukan birth narratives. The books of 1 and 2 Samuel substantially advance the story through Hannah’s answered prayer, her praise, and the story of an anointed king; therefore, the chapter emphasizes these books as a foundation for Lukan Christology and pneumatology.

Chapter 5 continues the discussion on the resurrection and explores the individual eschatology of the Pentateuch as a basis for Luke’s view of the resurrection of Jesus and that of his followers. The investigation moves to the prophets Hosea, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel and demonstrates how they build on the resurrection principles rooted in the Pentateuch. They flesh out the picture by further clarifying the reality of resurrection and developing the centrality of Christ as one who both experiences this great reversal of death and brings reversal for those who live under his rule.

Chapter 6 identifies the center of Lukan theology, further developing the royal and messianic implications of the Old Testament and Judaism and focusing on Jesus as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). This chapter demonstrates how the message of the kingdom of God and the expression word of God focus largely on Jesus’s resurrection.

Chapter 7 highlights how Luke’s pneumatology and the preaching of the resurrection converge in identifying Jesus as Lord and Christ. The Spirit identifies Jesus as the expected Messiah through inspired prophets such as Simeon, through prophetic praise, and through the ministry of John the Baptist. This chapter contains an overview of resurrection in Luke’s gospel and addresses some significant passages, but the bulk of the discussion on resurrection highlights the resurrection preaching in Acts.

Chapter 8 examines how the Spirit and the resurrection come together in fulfilling Old Testament expectations of an eschatological reversal and the experience of God’s presence in Lukan thought. The discussion focuses on Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation as the defining reversal in which his royal identity is manifest. His worthiness to exercise the divine prerogative of pouring out the Spirit becomes evident. This chapter also explores how Luke employs cultic imagery in order to describe the Pentecostal outpouring and highlight the christocentric nature of the event.

Chapter 9 concludes the study by highlighting the major areas where the Spirit and resurrection converge in Lukan thought and by offering some reflection on the implications of this for critical scholarship and the Pentecostal debate.

1

. By comparison Matthew mentions the Spirit twelve times, Mark six times, and John seventeen times. Luke also refers to the Spirit in other ways, especially as a promise (Luke

2

:

49

; Acts

1

:

4

;

2

:

33

,

39

), as a gift (Acts

1

:

4

;

2

:

38

;

10

:

45

;

11

:

17

; cf.

15

:

8

), and in close association with power (Luke

1

:

49

; Acts

1

:

8

). I will also argue that Jesus as the Christ (anointed one) must be included as a significant element of Luke’s pneumatology.

2

. Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts,

10–11

.

3

Although this is an oversimplification, the main positions on Lukan baptism in the Spirit can be summarized by James Dunn’s early position on conversion-initiation, Robert Menzies’s Pentecostal position on prophetic empowerment, and Max Turner’s moderating approach of charismatic conversion. A host of other authors fall somewhere along the conversion/empowerment spectrum, and some Pentecostals of a more revisionist persuasion have sought to thoroughly integrate Lukan pneumatology with the rest of the New Testament and have moved more in the direction of Turner. See Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit; Menzies, Empowered for Witness; Turner, Power from on High.

4

. The verb ἀνίστημι (to rise) refers to resurrection nineteen times, thirteen of which refer specifically to Jesus’s resurrection. In its seventeen occurrences, the noun ἀνάστασις (resurrection) always refers to resurrection (if one includes the reference in Luke

2

:

34

, but see the later discussion). It refers directly to Jesus’s resurrection four times and implies his resurrection five times. Luke uses the verb ἐγείρω (to rise up) sixteen times in reference to resurrection, and ten of these refer to Jesus’s resurrection. The verb ζάω (to live) refers to resurrection about nine times and describes Jesus’s resurrection on four occasions. The noun ζωή (life) clearly refers to Jesus’s resurrection on one occasion. Thus, Luke uses the above terms in reference to resurrection about sixty-two times and to Jesus’s resurrection a total of thirty-seven times.

5

. The list offered here is a sampling and is not exhaustive.

6

. Anderson, But God Raised,

1–2

.

7

. Stronstad, Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Stronstad more fully develops some of the seminal ideas of earlier Pentecostal scholars such as Anthony D. Palma, who says, Glossolalia is a specialized form of the gift of prophecy. Palma, Spirit,

76

. Note especially Palma’s discussion of Num

11

, Joel

2

, and Pentecost in chapters

2

and

6

.

8

. Mittelstadt, Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts.

9

. Cho, Spirit and Kingdom.

10

. All translations are the author’s unless otherwise noted.

11

. For a discussion of biblical theology by authors who hold a high view of the authority of Scripture, see Carson, Current Issues in Biblical Theology; Vos, Biblical Theology,

11–27

.

12

. The number of scholars whose sympathies lie along these lines are too numerous to mention, but Geza Vermes could speak for many: "In the Judaism of the Old Testament, resurrection made only a few late and foggy appearances, probably not before the end of the third century BC. It was not asserted definitely before the time of the Maccabean revolution in the

160

s BC, and even from then on its acceptance grew slowly and remained far from universal." Vermes, Resurrection, xv

–

xvi.

13

. Vos expounds on the inconsistencies between Old Testament eschatology and Julius Wellhausen’s views. See chapter

3

especially in Vos, Eschatology of the Old Testament.

14

. See the classic study by I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian.

2

The Spirit, Creation, and Luke-Acts

The Pentateuch contains about fifteen references to God’s Spirit (רוּחַ),¹⁵ although it is sometimes difficult to discern whether the Spirit of God is intended or the human spirit, the wind, or a spiritual being.¹⁶ The Genesis account immediately mentions the Spirit in 1:2, but it is evident from later passages that the activity of the Spirit is assumed by the audience in several passages where he is not mentioned. The following discussion focuses on the Spirit in creation. In connection with this, one observes the eschatological orientation of the Spirit’s work as the agent who advances God’s agenda as well as the Spirit’s role as a sanctuary builder.¹⁷ This view of the Pentateuch has a direct bearing on Luke’s eschatological worldview, the prominent place he gives to the Spirit’s role in the miraculous conception of Jesus, and some of the language of Pentecost.¹⁸

The Spirit and Creation

In the beginning (Gen 1:1) is more than a fitting phrase at the commencement of a book; it is an eschatological statement that implies both a story in progress and an end.¹⁹ That the final chapter of the Bible obviously alludes to the Genesis creation account (e.g., the tree of life; Rev 22:2) verifies that a divine plan was already in motion and that a consummation was in view.²⁰ Indeed, the correlate of eschatology is creation,²¹ and there is an absolute end posited for the universe before and apart from sin.²² This is fundamental to a doctrine of the Spirit and of resurrection. Genesis 1:2 immediately positions the Spirit in the role of the eschatological agent who turns the wasteland into a place of worship. There has therefore been something inherently prophetic about the operation of the Spirit from the outset, not so much in the formal sense of the word, but in the eschatological sense. That is, the Spirit knows the plan of God and propels it into the future. This prophetic/eschatological aspect of the Spirit’s activity has a bearing on Luke’s view, for numerous authors have noted the prophetic emphasis in Luke-Acts, and some have emphasized that Judaism primarily understood the Spirit as the prophetic Spirit.²³ But the origin of Luke’s emphasis on prophecy is deeper than Judaism and even the commonly recognized prophetic utterance passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Num 11:25–26, 29; 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20; Joel 2:28–29); it is rooted in the identity of the Spirit as the eschatological agent who advances God’s plan. Therefore it is no surprise when Luke opens his gospel with an allusion to eschatological fulfillment and numerous references to the Spirit and prophecy (e.g., 1:1, 41–42, 67–79; 2:25–35).²⁴

The Hovering Spirit

Several observations point to the identification of the רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים (Spirit of God) as the divine Spirit rather than as a wind or breath in Gen 1:2.²⁵ First, the author identifies him as the Spirit of God, and every one of the thirty-two occurrences of אֱלֹהִים in Gen 1 refers to God, including the occurrences in verses 1 and 3.²⁶ Second, the later allusion to Gen 1:2 in the Spirit’s power overshadowing Mary (Luke 1:35) assumes that the Holy Spirit is in view. Third, the progress from formless and empty (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ; Gen 1:2) to order and fullness more naturally lends itself to divine agency than to an impersonal force. Fourth, the dependency of the account of the construction of the tabernacle upon the creation account suggests that the same Spirit at work in Exodus (e.g., 31:5) was at work in Genesis.²⁷ Fifth, the context of Deut 32:11, the second of only three places in the Old Testament where רחף (hover) is found (Gen 1:2; cf. Jer 23:9), strongly suggests the activity of God.²⁸

In this Song of Moses he refers to God as the Creator of the Israelites (Deut 32:6), the one who found them in a wilderness land and in an empty [תֹּהוּ] and howling waste—a clear reference to Gen 1:2.²⁹ In this wilderness the Lord cares for Israel like an eagle hovering over its young (Deut 32:11). The simile likely refers to the pillar of a cloud by day and fire by night.³⁰ Yet in this prophetic song Israel forsakes its God, participates in idolatry, and faces judgment. But the Lord is sovereign: ‘See now that I, I am he, and there is no god besides me; I kill and I make alive; I have wounded and I will heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand’ (Deut 32:39). He will restore Israel and ultimately fulfill his purposes despite their failings. The Septuagint translates the four verbs of the two merismic phrases as future verbs (ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω πατάξω κἀγὼ ἰάσομαι) so as to render the phrase, I will kill and I will make alive; I will wound and I will heal. But the third verb is a perfect verb in the Hebrew text (מָחַצְתִּי; I have wounded), and the switch from it to the imperfect verb (אֶרְפָּא) highlights the final verb and turns it into a clear promise of restoration: I have wounded and I will heal.³¹

This is an amazing promise in light of the deplorable state of Israel envisioned here: they are devoid of strength, and there is no one left among them (Deut 32:36).³² Several elements in the Hebrew text of verse 39 highlight God’s absolute and unique authority over life and death, including the attention-grabbing see now (רְאוּ עַתָּה), the change in the narrative to the first person, and the repetition of I (אֲנִי). While this passage does not directly detail an individual eschatology or a physical resurrection, it certainly builds a theological basis for the concept, particularly when one reads that the certainty of vindication for Israel comes from the declaration As surely as I live forever (v. 40). Death is no barrier to the eternal God—a concept basic to Jesus’s claim that God remains in fellowship with the patriarchs and raises the dead (Luke 20:37–38).

The linguistic and thematic ties between the Genesis account and the Song of Moses provides somewhat of a frame around the Pentateuch. Genesis narrates the creation, the agency of the hovering Spirit in bringing order from an empty wasteland, the fall of humanity, and the promise of future restoration (3:15). Deuteronomy 32 describes the creation of Israel, the rescue of the nation from the howling wasteland, the hovering presence of God, the rebellion of the nation, and the promise of future restoration.³³

Some salient points from the above comparison deserve mention. First, the two passages tie together several items of particular interest in this study, including an eschatological outlook, creation, the activity of the Spirit, and the need for restoration. In the second passage the restoration amounts to a national resurrection. Second, the intentional recapitulation of Genesis in Deuteronomy suggests a narrative unity to the Pentateuch, which in turn suggests that the Hebrew people had an early foundational knowledge of God’s sovereignty over life and death and of his ability to reverse death. Third, in this light, Ezekiel’s depiction of Israel’s national restoration with vivid resurrection terminology does not seem so original (Ezek 37:1–14). The rabbis sometimes used some questionable hermeneutics in passages such as Deut 32:39 while attempting to demonstrate that resurrection is taught in the Torah, but their instincts were largely correct, for even Ezekiel drew from the implications of such passages.³⁴

The Design of the Spirit

The Spirit’s agency in transforming the land from formless and empty (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ; Gen 1:2) to ordered and full associates him with eschatological progression. Lloyd Neve suggests that the conjunction in the phrase and the Spirit of God (וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים) could be a waw adversative, establishing a contrast between the barrenness of the land prior to the Spirit’s activity and the fullness afterward.³⁵ The context confirms this suggestion. Throughout the creation narrative the author highlights the arrival of light, new life, beauty, and symmetry and then reaches a climax in the creation of humans in the image of God. The cadence of the Hebrew text itself and the Hebrew literary devices employed (such as rhyme, repetition, and alliteration) reflect the nature of the subject matter described; a crown of beauty replaces ashes (Isa 61:3 NIV). Gordon Wenham notes numerous indicators of this in the text, such as the correspondence between the first three and second three days of creation, the repetition of the number seven and the occurrence of multiples of seven, the formulaic manner in which the creation days are presented, and the chiastic construction of Gen 1:1—2:3.³⁶

Later biblical writers confirm the eschatological significance of the creation story when they allude to the formless and empty (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ) phrase of Gen 1:2 and use the same two nouns in other eschatological contexts. The prophets incorporate the same two nouns to describe the devastation of the approaching international day of vengeance (Isa 34:11) and the ruination of the land of Judah (Jer 4:23). Just as in the Genesis account, the sin of humanity results in a reversal of the order and beauty of creation and the wasting of the land.³⁷ With this background in mind, the multiple mentions of the Spirit in the Lukan birth narratives should alert the reader that God’s agent of creation is advancing his agenda in a fresh, creative act (1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25, 26).

Sailhamer argues that the author of Genesis largely emphasizes the inhabitability of the land with the expression formless and empty because God is in the process of making the land a fitting place for humanity to dwell and because the broader context of the Pentateuch focuses so much on the covenantal promised land.³⁸ He finds much support for his thesis in the prophetic books, and the contrast between empty (תֹּהוּ) and inhabited in Isa 45:18 is particularly impressive.³⁹ Continuity exists between this passage, the themes of Deut 32, and the creation account. In Isa 44–45 God promises to raise up Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple (44:28; 45:13), and God will do this because he is the only God (45:6; cf. Deut 32:39).⁴⁰ As in Deut 32:39, this passage emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, especially creation and the fortunes of humanity: I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things (Isa 45:7 NIV). References to God

Reviews for Resurrection and Spirit

[jay mecca · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Wow, this book is really it! Theologically sound and eye opening. A must-read!